Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2022-09-16
R1866/2021-3
Contested design: 000096102-0005
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution, and each party must bear its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision; 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further prosecution of the request for a declaration of invalidity; 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Trilatec GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Forsthausstraße 10, 66663 Merzig, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
ELTETE TPM OYvia PDF extraction
Finland (FI)
P.O. Box 94, FI-07901 Loviisa, Finland
Prior art cited (4)
pallet-foot / loading-pallet product disclosed by the holder itself
Finnish patent application No 2001-2093 · Finnish patent publication · disclosed 2003-04-04
pallet-foot / loading-pallet product disclosed by the holder itself
Finnish patent application No 2002-1490 · Finnish patent publication · disclosed 2004-02-20
pallet
WO-94/02366 · international patent publication · disclosed 1994-02-03
PallRun pallet-foot product shown on the holder's website / Wayback Machine captures
www.eltete.com / PallRun · design holder website / Wayback Machine · disclosed 2002-06-25
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant had secured first-instance invalidation by arguing that the pallet-foot design consisted solely of features dictated by technical function and additionally lacked novelty and individual character over patent and website disclosures.
- ›The design holder appealed, disputing both the product identification and the conclusion that every appearance feature was exclusively technical, while maintaining that the other invalidity grounds were unproven.
- ›The Board found that the Invalidity Division erred under Article 8(1) CDR because the invalidity applicant had not established that all relevant appearance features, including the proportions of the upper brim-like part, were solely dictated by technical function.
- ›The appeal was upheld, the invalidation decision annulled, and the case remitted so the remaining novelty and individual-character grounds could be examined at first instance.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberH. Salmi
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0010/2024-3 | 2024-10-02 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 7 |
| R2414/2018-3 | 2023-03-01 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1072/2020-3 | 2021-07-14 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |
| R1070/2020-3 | 2021-07-05 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1) | — | 7 |